Athlon 64 3100+ vs Celeron J1750
Athlon 64 3100+
Celeron J1750
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 3100+ is positioned at rank 1074 and the Celeron J1750 is on rank 1234, so the Athlon 64 3100+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3100+
Performance Per Dollar Celeron J1750
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron J1750 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lima (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-D (2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron J1750 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 3100+ and Celeron J1750
Athlon 64 3100+
The Athlon 64 3100+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 475 points. Launch price was $149.
Celeron J1750
The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.
Processing Power
The Athlon 64 3100+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron J1750 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 — a 18.6% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750. The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron J1750 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3100+ scores 475 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 6.1% lead for the Celeron J1750. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 280 vs 150, a 60.5% lead for the Athlon 64 3100+ that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 280 vs 250 (11.3% advantage for the Athlon 64 3100+).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron J1750 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2.41 GHz+21% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.41 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| L2 Cache | 512K | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 65 nm | 22 nm-66% |
| Architecture | Lima (2008−2009) | Bay Trail-D (2013) |
| PassMark | 475 | 505+6% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 280+87% | 150 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 280+12% | 250 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon 64 3100+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron J1750 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 3100+ versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 — the Celeron J1750 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 3100+) vs 4 (Celeron J1750) — the Athlon 64 3100+ offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: nForce 500,AMD 690G (Athlon 64 3100+) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron J1750 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM2 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3L-1333+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+300% | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon 64 3100+) vs VT-x (Celeron J1750). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Athlon 64 3100+ requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 64 3100+ targets Legacy Desktop, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Athlon 64 3100+ rivals Celeron D 352; Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3100+ | Celeron J1750 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | Low Power |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 3100+ and Celeron J1750
